MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1489086.kGfJeeyi4a@garp>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQ3Qs=s7qwhxjwJa9cLJLMJg+LXjPQDCGUDMEjyrHqO_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1489086.kGfJeeyi4a@garp>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 19:41:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSyWaRfXHKWZYzZ4X8ksMECaO47dTXum67XwpTTYnbDXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
 technical debate
Precedence: list

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> It is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It also
> makes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without basis.
> For the second time in this thread.
> I would suggest arguing on the topic, not on the man.

Such a shame you appear to reserve that wisdom for those you disagree
with, biting your tongue when others emit all forms of ad hominem--
such as suggesting we've spent less volunteer time on Bitcoin and thus
our opinion has less merit (or that we haven't written certian kinds
of software (even when, ironically, we have!), and thus our opinion
doesn't have merit, and so on). I think everyone would benefit from
it, especially as that kind of correction is best received from
someone who agrees with you.

In this case, I think, however your correction is also misplaced at
least on this message; though I would otherwise welcome it.  I'm not
complaining about the man; but pointing out the behavior of stating an
opinion no one as held as theirs and attacking it is not a productive
way to hold a discussion. It's an argument or a behavior, not a
person, and beyond calling it bad I attempted to explaining (perhaps
poorly) why its bad.

What Sergio is saying is not the same; Mike argued some established
criteria existed where it didn't-- and I was pointing that out; and
talking about how the situation here is not very similar to the one
that Mike was trying to draw a parallel to. I enumerated a number of
specific reasons why this is the case. If the differences between
Sergio's comments and mine are still unclear after this clarification,
I'd be glad to talk it through with you off-list-- in spite of your
(welcome) compliments, communication is just fundamentally difficult,
and no amount eloquence changes that. If there is continued
misunderstanding, I do not doubt its my fault; but it's probably not a
good use of hundreds/thousands of people's time for you to help me
interactively improve my explanation on list. :)